News for hackers. Stuff that matters.
Re:How the Textsecure Protocol Works by pbhjpbhj on Saturday October 15, 2016 @06:35PM (#12715932)
So if they implemented a small extra procedure to copy text and send on a side-channel when a flag was set externally, if such a thing was done then this would be obvious to many people despite it being closed source? Aren't these apps developed modularly?

Or indeed if it were a patch that could be initiated as forced update at will from the server-side, again that would be clear to "people" based on the client side binary?

These are the ways I imagine I'd snoop on supposed end-to-end encrypted communication channels; there's probably something much cleverer, but again, we're saying that can be detected easily?

Genuine questions, not a programmer, not familiar with the state-of-the-art of reading machine code/interpreting network traffic, nor indeed with which watchdogs are guarding against abuse by the TLAs.

Re:How the Textsecure Protocol Works by tptacek on Saturday October 15, 2016 @07:25PM (#12716096)
That's not really what "side channel" means. You mean "covert channel", a related but different concept.
Re:How the Textsecure Protocol Works by pbhjpbhj on Sunday October 16, 2016 @05:49PM (#12721191)
I was thinking something like using the SMS channel which, IIUC, was originally for carrying solely control information and ergo is a side-channel; more in the telecoms sense than the crypto sense. Yes, perhaps "covert channel" would be better.

Do you have any response to the substantive point or just quibbles on the semantics.

Re:How the Textsecure Protocol Works by WhitneyLand on Sunday October 16, 2016 @10:48AM (#12718817)
The bigger point he's making is that your comment "Anyone who can read a control flow graph" can be taken to mean everything is fine here when it's really not.

Its not hard to imagine how WA could be compromised without anyone knowing for many years.

Re:How the Textsecure Protocol Works by tptacek on Sunday October 16, 2016 @12:07PM (#12719242)
I don't understand what you are trying to say here, sorry.